Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.18 seconds)
Sundarambal Ammal And Kamalambal Ammal vs Yogavanagurukkal on 28 January, 1914 cites

Ganesh Prasad And Anr. vs Ram Shankar Lal Baldeo Das And Ors. on 23 March, 1907

The learned Judges consider the Bombay decisions as to the alienation of a religious office and make the following remarks " It appears from the authorities cited, and from others which will be noticed further on, that a distinction has been made by the Courts between Vrittis such as those in dispute in this case, and defined in Ganesh v. Shankar (1886) I.L.R. 10 B. 395 and the right of hereditary service in temples private and public, and between alienation to strangers and to members of the family and, lastly, between compulsory and private alienation. " Then the learned Judges say that custom and practice must be followed in such cases.
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Monmohini Guha vs Banga Chandra Das on 29 June, 1903

11. Coming to the last set of authorities, in Manmohini Guha v. Banga Chandra Das (1903) I.L.R. 31 C. 357 it was held that a grant of probate which establishes a right in rem cannot be made merely on the consent of parties and that an agreement or compromise which involve a right affecting not only the parties to the action but the public cannot be compromised so as to oblige the Court to pass a decree in terms thereof. The learned Judges say that " an agreement or compromise as regards this issue, if its effect is to exclude evidence in proof of the will is not lawful within the meaning of Section 375 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when the Court has not an opportunity of judging for itself whether the will is the will of the deceased person and to what extent the rights of the parties will be affected, if the agreement be allowed to be made a rule of Court." The Court itself has certain duties in connection with a case in which the judgment in rem has to be pronounced, or in a case, which involves the right of the public or the right to a religious and charitable office, or the right of a minor or other incapacitated person. Where an agreement or compromise attempts to affect such rights after they are brought before the Court for adjudication, it seems to me, that it is not a lawful agreement or compromise.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Nawab Mohammad Ibrahim Khan vs Ahmad Said Khan And Anr. on 1 April, 1910

In Muhamad Ibrahim-Khan v. Ahmad Said Khan (1910) I.L.R. 32 A. 503 at p. 513 the learned Judges say: "A party can refer a matter of a private individual right of a civil nature to arbitration, but he has no power to refer a matter which is not purely of a private civil character, and it is on this ground that a Bench of this Court in Mahadeo Prasad v. Bindeshri Prasad (1909) I.L.R. 30 A. 137 held that the appointment of a guardian to a minor not being a matter of a private right as between parties, was not a question which could be settled by reference to arbitration ; Then the learned Judges say " the right to the office of a trustee to a public charity cannot also be settled by private arbitration."
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

K. Seshadri Iyengar And Ors. vs Ranga Pattar on 7 April, 1911

In Seshadri Iyengar v. Ranga Pattar (1911) 21 M.L.J. 680. at p.582 it is stated "the position of an Archakar though he may have a hereditary tenure in the office, is in our opinion, essentially that of a servant." He is subject to the discipline of the trustee of the temple. And it is impossible to admit that a servant can alienate his office with its appurtenant emoluments at his pleasure (even to another qualified person) especially without the consent of his master for, by such alienation he would encroach upon the rights"of his master.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Janokee Debea vs Gopaul Acharjea And Anr. on 29 January, 1877

In Janokee Debea v. Gopaul Acharjea (1877) I.L.R. 2 C. 365 the Calcutta High Court say that a widow who was the heiress of her husband as regards private properties, cannot by reason of that simple fact claim to be entitled also to succeed to her husband's right to hold the office in a temple. The learned Judges say, "The presumption in her favour from her husband having been in possession would not apply in this case in the same way and with the sape force as if the question were-who was to succeed to her husband's private estate. There the ordinary rule of inheritance must prevail unless displaced by some special rule. Here the very question at issue is whether the rule of inheritance prevails at all. Of course, the duties of the office of Shebait may merely involve the management of the trust and in that case, there is no disability in a female heir to succeed to the office but if it also involves the Archaka duties, I think that sex is a disqualification according to the accepted law.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Rajah M. Bhaskara Sethupathi And ... vs Narayanasamy Gurukkal And Ors. on 25 September, 1901

In Raja M. Bhaskara Setupati and Irulappa Nadan v. Narayanaswami Gurukkal (1901) 12 M.L.J. 360 this Court refused to allow the Raja of Ramnad who was a temple trustee to compromise a dispute with the Shanars which related to the alleged rights of the Shanars to enter the temple, because such a compromise affected the usages of the temple and the rights of other sections of the Hindu public.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Srimant Rajah Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna ... vs Makerla Sridevamma And Ors. on 18 March, 1897

9. Coming to the next set of authorities, it has been no doubt, held that sex is no disqualification for a lady to hold the office of management of a religious trust whether Hindu or Mussalman. The case in Mallikarjuna v. Sridevamma (1897) I.L.R. 20 M. 162, S.C. 7 M.L.J. 289 was a case in which a widow succeeded to the trusteeship of a charitable endowment and her right to succeed was not questioned.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sennayan Chetty vs Sinnappan Servai on 23 March, 1910

In Sennayan v. Sinnappan (1910) 20 M.L.J. 654. Munro and Sankaran Nair JJ- upheld the contention of the respondent's counsel as to the inalienability of a non-hereditary religious office and that a renunciation in favour of even the next senior member of the family by the eldest member who held the office was invalid. Thus the Madras High Court, to use the argument of respondent's counsel in that case, "has not accepted the position taken by the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts," namely, that alienation to the next in succession is valid. That the office of Archakas differs in many respects from a purely secular private office goes without saying.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1